Board index ‹ Jesus

[Book Mitten]

Jesus could be a supernatural being, but not God.

Title is fairly self explanatory. If Jesus did perform Miracles, come back from the dead, etc, does this mean he is connected with the creator of the universe? Or does it simply mean Jesus could be (or could have been, depending on how you look at it) a being with powers, nothing more, nothing less? Does the existence of Jesus also necessitate a creator of the universe? It seems to me that it does not.

[jimwalton]

He could be a supernatural being, not God, but that's neither the claim God made, Jesus made, or the disciples made. And since we have all three of those parties pushing the envelope the understand Jesus differently, we have to wrestle with those claims.

GOD claimed that Jesus was His equal. If we start off gently, Matt. 3.17 & 17.5 find God affirming Jesus as part of Him—His Son. Later we find the two are aligned as one being: Jn. 5.19-23; 8.14-18

JESUS claimed to be God. Jn. 5.16-18; 8.58-59; 10.30-31.

THE DISCIPLES claim Jesus is God. Jn. 1.1; 6.69; Heb. 1.2; Col. 1.15-20.

So we have to deal not only with Jesus's miracles or his wise teaching. Jesus was not content to let it sit with that. When people said he was just a prophet, he pushed them further (Mk. 8.27-29); when people said he was an angel, the biblical writers refused to let that stand (Heb. 1). Therefore we have to deal with the claims Jesus made: "I and the Father are one (the same essence)."

> Does the existence of Jesus also necessitate a creator of the universe? It seems to me that it does not.

Not on its own, but since the biblical writers claimed (1) that Jesus is God (Jn. 1.1; Heb. 1.2), and that He is also the creator of all things (Jn. 1.3; Heb. 1.3), we have to respond to the claims. Was He or wasn't he? That's where the discussion lies.

[Shema]

> He could be a supernatural being, not God, but that's neither the claim God made, Jesus made, or the disciples made.

Oh, why would make a distinction between the two then. And Jesus only even claimed to be the anointed and son God, and explicitly refuted being God; Matt. 22:44 cf. Ps. 110:1, John 20:17.

As did his apostles (Acts 3:13, Acts 3:22 cf. Deu. 18:15-18), and, of course God (Isaiah 45:5), that also made it explicitly clear the messiah would be God-fearing servant endowed with his spirit, not some pagan incarnate God-man (Is. 11:1-5).

> Heb. 1.2;

Liar, liar. Hebrews 1:1-2 says the exact opposite; that the father alone spoke through the.prophets of old, and declared that beside Him there is no other.

> Jn. 10.30

Liar, liar. It's an idiomatic expression meaning the are one in purpose (cf. 1 Cor. 3:8). Hence he prayed that his followers would become one as they are one, and one with them (John 17:21-23), meaning there no possible way any future, polytheistic satanist could possibly argue they've misunderstood his intent.

And if Jesus or anyone were ever to state such vile blasphemy, they would per definition be false prophet, and are prescribed death according to Torah. But luckily for Jesus it's only his so called followers fulfilling those requirements.

[jimwalton]

> why would make a distinction between the two then.

There was always a distinction between the two. The Bible Trinity distinguishes between the principle of divine action and the subject of divine action. The principle of all divine action is the one undivided divine essence (one being, the monotheistic Christian God), but the subject of divine action is either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit (3 persons). The Father can send the Son according to his power, and the Son can be incarnated according to his nature without dividing the divine essence.

> And Jesus only even claimed to be the anointed and son God, and explicitly refuted being God

This is untrue. Jesus never explicitly refuted being God.

> Matt. 22.44; Ps. 110.1

Jesus is explicitly aligning himself with YHWH. For Jesus’s audience (and many readers since), Jesus was saying it's theologically possible for God to be a singularity and a plurality at the same time. It's Old Testament and New Testament. YHWH is showing that the Son belongs in the highest place of honor—that of deity. In the Mark version of this exchange (Mk. 14.62), Jesus was so clear about his deity that what he said was condemned as blasphemy by the Sanhedrin. It would have been blasphemy if it weren't true.

> John 20.17

The reasons for his distinction ("my God" and "your God" is a distinction that Jesus always made: his relationship with God was different from theirs. He always separated Himself from humanity while both identifying with humanity and claiming equality with God.

> "Heb. 1.1-2" Liar, liar.

Hebrews 1 is clearly a treatise on the deity of Jesus. Hebrews 1.2 says God has revealed Himself to us by His Son (no article, giving the absolute sense of "son"). In Jesus there has taken place the definitive revelation of YHWH by YHWH Himself. Jesus is the ultimate and final revelation of YHWH to the world. The Son Jesus is the expression of what was promised ("heir of all things"). He is the rightful owner of all, as is YHWH (Ps. 2.8). He is distinct from the Father and one with Him simultaneously. He is also the agent of creation. The Son is not created; He is the Creator.

> "John 10.30" Liar, liar.

Joh 10.30 can't be more clear: Jesus and YHWH are one essence. If he meant "one in purpose," the Jews would not have picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy. And notice that Jesus never said they misunderstood and should stand down.

> And if Jesus or anyone were ever to state such vile blasphemy, they would per definition be false prophet, and are prescribed death according to Torah.

That is exactly why they set him up for crucifixion—because He claimed to be God. They regarded Him as a false prophet, as do you, but His resurrection from the dead proved them all to be wrong.

[Moma]

This post makes good points. The Father believes Jesus is God Jesus believes Jesus is God The disciples believed Jesus is God The early Christians believed Jesus is God

Jesus is the word in flesh and the word was God and through him all things came into being - John 1

[Book Mitten]

He could claim to be God but not be. Additionally the disciples could be mistaken. I'm not sure if either of those are true. All I'm saying is that claims of divinity don't necessarily hold true. The disciples could simply have been amazed by Jesus's abilities and conclude from this that he is God.

[jimwalton]

> He could claim to be God but not be. Additionally the disciples could be mistaken.

These are both true. The claim doesn't make it so.

> I'm not sure if either of those are true.

Well, this is where the discussion lies: (1) What are the reasons (evidences) we would consider his claim to be true? To be false?

> All I'm saying is that claims of divinity don't necessarily hold true.

This is the crux of the matter. On what basis have you evaluated that the claims don't hold true? It's your evidence that matters.

> The disciples could simply have been amazed by Jesus's abilities and conclude from this that he is God.

This just doesn't hold water, but this is what we need to talk about.

• Over and over the disciples were amazed by Jesus's abilities, but Jesus pushed them beyond that, claiming to be God.
• There was a common understanding that Jesus was at least a prophet with special abilities, but Jesus pushes beyond that, claiming to be more than a prophet.
• The disciples readily saw his amazing abilities, but their recognition of him as God was not dependent on those. Rather, it was his resurrection and the filling of the Holy Spirit that was the basis of their conclusion that He is God.

So I'd be curious to see your case for the ideas you have and the positions you are taking. This is fun; let's talk.

[Book Mitten]

> Over and over the disciples were amazed by Jesus's abilities, but Jesus pushed them beyond that, claiming to be God. There was a common understanding that Jesus was at least a prophet with special abilities, but Jesus pushes beyond that, claiming to be more than a prophet. The disciples readily saw his amazing abilities, but their recognition of him as God was not dependent on those. Rather, it was his resurrection and the filling of the Holy Spirit that was the basis of their conclusion that He is God.

Just so we're clear, are his abilities required for the disciples to believe he is God? Also, doesn't his resurrection count as an amazing ability?

My reasons for believing that Jesus could be simply an alien or superhuman etc rather than the biblical God are things like:

• The problem of evil. Why does God allow things he considers evil?
• The elusiveness of God (why does he allow other religions?, why doesn't he appear today? etc)
• My own contentions with Biblical conceptions of justice: Why does God harm himself (or his son depending upon how you see it) on the cross if (supposedly) he is perfect and humans commited the crimes that he condemns? Why does Jesus tell people to hate their families?
• Why are people sent to hell for temporal crimes? Why is slavery allowed, sometimes even condoned to some extent, in the Bible?

These things might seem separate, but in my opinion, they have the potential to make the Biblical God less likely. As a result, an alien or superhuman claiming to be the creator of the universe, but not actually being so, is a distinct possibility.

[jimwalton]

> are his abilities required for the disciples to believe he is God?

His abilities aren't required, but Jesus did do them as signs to verify and confirm what he was saying. If Jesus were born as He was, didn't say a word, didn't do a thing, but then died on the cross and rose again, the same work would have been accomplished. The true issue is: Is Jesus the incarnated God? IF He's God, and came to Earth to die for our sins and rise again, that is all that is necessary.

But the teachings were meant to instruct and help us. We benefit from that kind of wisdom. And His miracles were meant as signs to confirm His deity in our eyes. (It's VERY common in the Bible for God to confirm His message with some kind of sign.) So that's what they were—but they're not required. Instead, they're helpful.

> doesn't his resurrection count as an amazing ability?

The NT says that God the Father raised Jesus from the dead (Acts 2.24, 32; 3.15, 26; 4.10; 5.30, etc.). Now, to be fair, since the Bible says Jesus and the Father are one and the same essence, Jesus says He will raise Himself from the dead (Jn. 2.19; 10.17-18). But you'll notice that in Jn. 2.19 He says He will raise Himself, and then in v. 22 it says He was raised (by God). Jesus's actions and God's actions are inseparable. Generally, putting it all together, we believe the Father raised Jesus from the dead (the habitual NT form of expression on this matter).

So, in direct answer to your question: No, His resurrection doesn't count as an amazing ability. It's the action that conquers the power of death, even if no one witnessed it. But Jesus DID allow people to witness it, so that our faith is based on evidence, not on blind faith.

> My reasons for believing that Jesus could be simply an alien or superhuman etc rather than the biblical God are things like:

Thank you for this.

> The problem of evil. Why does God allow things he considers evil?

This is a long and complex answer, but VERY briefly,

1. Evil and suffering can exist simultaneously with an "omni-" God as long as such evil and suffering have the possibility of good.
2. Evil and suffering can be allowed by an “omni-“ God where free will is necessary for humanity, which it is.
3. Evil and suffering can be allowed by an "omni-“ God because a dynamic world is superior to a static one.
4. God can use evil to beneficial ends (even though He doesn't perpetrate it).

There's much more. But am I to assume that since you have used this as a reason to discount God, you have read and studied this issue thoroughly? If so, then you know the arguments for the problem of evil are adequately addressed by Christianity.

> The elusiveness of God (why does he allow other religions?, why doesn't he appear today? etc)

Again, this is a long answer, but I'll write short. In the Bible we find that the more obvious God makes Himself, the greater the disbelief and the rebellion against Him. (Think Satan in who knows how long in the past, Adam & Eve, during the Exodus, and during the time of Jesus). It actually turns out as an aspect of human nature that the far wiser approach than obviousness is elusiveness—working inside the heart through the Spirit than in the empirical world of the eyes. We can talk about this more if you want.

> Why does God harm himself?

Because it's the only way. The only way to break out of prison is to be in prison. The only way to conquer death is to be dead first. The nature of life and death fixes certain realities. God just can't willy-nilly do this or that; His actions conform to what really is.

> Why does Jesus tell people to hate their families?

It's hyperbole to make a point. He's pushing their buttons, or they won't really get it. People are notoriously stuck in their mindsets. It takes quite a bit of disequilibrium to actually get a person to change their mind and their course in life.

> Why are people sent to hell for temporal crimes?

We don't know for sure that hell is eternal for everyone. What we know for sure is that God will be perfectly fair. If temporal punishment is what is fair for temporal crimes, then that is what will be. Our biggest takeaway from biblical talk about punishment after death is that God will not do anything that is in the least bit unfair. That's what you can hang you hat on.

> Why is slavery allowed, sometimes even condoned to some extent, in the Bible?

Slavery in the ancient world (Old Testament) was mostly debt slavery, much like our employment system. Chattel slavery was unknown in ancient Israel. First, the Israelites had been slaves themselves and we averse to slavery. Second, they were small family farmers and had little use or money for slavery. Third, the Bible speaks of the value of every human, so no one was treated as property. Fourth, therefore the "slavery" of the OT was more like indentured servitude, but "slave" was their word for it. It is never condoned. It was the teachings of the Bible that eventually undid slavery in the Roman Empire, and 18 centuries later in the colonial West.

Obviously all of these subjects demand a much longer discussion, but I can only put so much into one post. We can discuss any of them further if you want, but probably have to do so one at a time.

As a result, God, the way the Bible describes Him, is a far greater possibility of reality than an alien or a superhuman. Let's keep talking.

[Book Mitten]

> Let's keep talking

Definitely. There's a lot to cover here. So I'll need to answer in bits. Feel free to either respond to one post or point at a time, or all points I post, depending upon what works for you. Thanks for your time.

> Because it's the only way. The only way to break out of prison is to be in prison. The only way to conquer death is to be dead first. The nature of life and death fixes certain realities. God just can't willy-nilly do this or that; His actions conform to what really is.

In other words, he can't do what is logically impossible, with which I agree. Is this a reasonable interpretation of what you're saying?

My disagreement lies in the fact that God harming himself is necessary for salvation, or a better world. I would request some expansion on this.

> What we know for sure is that God will be perfectly fair.

This depends on your definition of fair. I am a staunch opponent of divine command theory. God should be swayed objective morality rather than simply making up his own rules.

I should also mention that burning people in fire is an unconstructive punishment that only makes more wounds rather than healing the wounds that perpetrators made on earth.